it was 24 years ago today

[hammertime]

Maybe I should wait until another day -- but there was something kind of irritating about John Lennon -- not just his voice, but his whole persona. I know I'm supposed to like the Beatles, but I just don't. I'll take AC/DC's Highway to Hell over any Beatles record any day.

[A.L.]

Whoah, outrage city. Free hug for first to apply.

[bassface]

John could be super irritating: read "Lennon Remembers".

But his outspokenness and willingness to say whatever the fuck he felt like are part of what makes him so important and loveable to me.

Writing a song called "All you need is love"? Who the fuck else had the courage to do something like that? Or "imagine"? Who else has full-on challenging deep-set cultural norms tunes like that? "Love"? "Nobody told me there'd be days like these" Songs that express his actual experience and feelings?

Nobody else like him before or since.

If I could have any dead rock artist back from the grave it'd be JL. What would he have to say about these crazy fucked-up times?

[hammertime]

Why should I care what John Lennon says about these "fucked up" times, or any other time for that matter -- as if I'm not perfectly capable myself of passing judgment for myself. I personally think these times are pretty fucking good myself. I don't care what any rockstar says.

[spectralgrey]

So in other words any song with lyrics which express an opinion is irrelevant because you have opinions too?

I'm not trying to jump to conclusions about your views here, but that's seriously the logic you used in your statement. The point of lyrics is always some kind of expression and whoever is singing them is just trying to share their feelings, whether it be about politics, love, dragons, leather pants, whatever. You can agree with them or disagree, but to totally dismiss opinions because you can make your own is pretty thick-headed. Man, everything from Subterranean Homesick Blues to The Star Spangled Banner is a pile of shit then. I guess I'll have to start writing instrumentals only.

[hammertime]

Okay, so we get into the question of aesthetics. You're view is that the essence of lyrics, insofar as they are good lyrics, is to convey a "point." Contrast that to, say, e.g., Shopenhauer, who would say that music, insofar as it's good music, is the formless language of the will -- a point of view that was adopted by Nietzsche (and later repudiated by him) in the Birth of Tragedy (out of the spirit of music). According to this point of view, the essence of music lies in it's not making a point in anyone way, but bringing the listener to the ground -- the subteranean bog of undifferentiated being, the true primal unity of contradiction that lies at the heart of nature. They would relegate didactic art (e.g., Aesop's fables, or the Star Spangled Banner) to a childish realm or the realm of nonart altogether. I personally like Plato's view of music -- it should be a tonic used in relaxation, or as preparation for war.

So in other words any song with lyrics which express an opinion is irrelevant because you have opinions too?

I'm not trying to jump to conclusions about your views here, but that's seriously the logic you used in your statement. The point of lyrics is always some kind of expression and whoever is singing them is just trying to share their feelings, whether it be about politics, love, dragons, leather pants, whatever. You can agree with them or disagree, but to totally dismiss opinions because you can make your own is pretty thick-headed. Man, everything from Subterranean Homesick Blues to The Star Spangled Banner is a pile of shit then. I guess I'll have to start writing instrumentals only.

[hammertime]

And one more point. Just because someone sings something into a microphone with a bunch of guitars and shit, doesn't mean it's true. Personally, I don't like hearing peoples opinions unless they want to hear mine -- and they probably don't. So I wish these clowns would get off their high horse ... and get ready for Hammertime.

[PT]

Okay, so we get into the question of aesthetics. You're view is that the essence of lyrics, insofar as they are good lyrics, is to convey a "point." Contrast that to, say, e.g., Shopenhauer, who would say that music, insofar as it's good music, is the formless language of the will -- a point of view that was adopted by Nietzsche (and later repudiated by him) in the Birth of Tragedy (out of the spirit of music). According to this point of view, the essence of music lies in it's not making a point in anyone way, but bringing the listener to the ground -- the subteranean bog of undifferentiated being, the true primal unity of contradiction that lies at the heart of nature. They would relegate didactic art (e.g., Aesop's fables, or the Star Spangled Banner) to a childish realm or the realm of nonart altogether. I personally like Plato's view of music -- it should be a tonic used in relaxation, or as preparation for war.

Wow! You, like, read 'n shit.

[hammertime]

Not anymore. Hammertime hasn't read a book in three years. Good night.

Okay, so we get into the question of aesthetics. You're view is that the essence of lyrics, insofar as they are good lyrics, is to convey a "point." Contrast that to, say, e.g., Shopenhauer, who would say that music, insofar as it's good music, is the formless language of the will -- a point of view that was adopted by Nietzsche (and later repudiated by him) in the Birth of Tragedy (out of the spirit of music). According to this point of view, the essence of music lies in it's not making a point in anyone way, but bringing the listener to the ground -- the subteranean bog of undifferentiated being, the true primal unity of contradiction that lies at the heart of nature. They would relegate didactic art (e.g., Aesop's fables, or the Star Spangled Banner) to a childish realm or the realm of nonart altogether. I personally like Plato's view of music -- it should be a tonic used in relaxation, or as preparation for war.

Wow! You, like, read 'n shit.

[R. Alcatraz]

It's too bad that the anniversary of John's death has become a Paul vs. John debate. Well, "Roll over Beethoven" as John used to say.
John and Paul were certainly both musical geniuses in their own right. Duh. Lennon is Babe Ruth and Paul is Lou Gerhig. Or something.
By the way, if think Yoko Ono's art is sophmoric, I would advise never taking any modern art theory classes. Trust me, it would confuse you.
Someone a while back said that Paul's taking LSD made him think about his father and get sappy. I don't think so. Paul didn't actually do much that much LSD . John and George were taking it for a while before he did. He was always a little wary of it -- probably because it didn't react well with his innate sappy hearted nostalgia. This is why Paul has later claimed that Sgt. Pepper was fueled by pot only. For him maybe. Lennon was taking LSD during Revolver ("She said she said" was born of John and George taking acid with Peter Fonda) while Paul was still all about the wacky (detailed in "Got to get you into my Life" -- no shit)
Paul is an awesome chameleon of styles. His ability to imitate other singers is freakish. He claims it is how he learned to sing. Lennon is more recognizable as himself -- perhaps the reason why he was so self-conscoius about himself. Of course, Lennon is the greatest rock tenor of all time. of course of course
Paul can write nice flexible melodies on the crapper. I bet most of those eights took about ten minutes. awesome.
He is also a shit hot bassist. Maybe my favorite ever. Like Bach's left hand crossed with Chuck Berry.
Also, whoever vbrought up "to write a song called 'All you need is love'" is amazing and so ballsy etc (sorry if I'm misquoting).... eh... with the Beatles, always rings a little hollow to me. The music, the music the music, this is why it's so great. For me at least, it's never really what the music is about with the Beatles, it is the music itself. Except for maybe "Happiness as a warm gun" with it's sarcastic "bang bangs" in a song about herion. and the "Revolution" from the white album with its sarcastic doo-wop. These songs both appeal to me conceptually. "Drive my car" the pleasure is not so conceptual.
hammertime brings this up to some extent, but then he unfortunatly goes into Schopenhauer (with a ch, hammertime ). Schopenhauer can be refreshing as an atheist take on Philosophy, but a couple of things always turned me off about him -- One the whole notion of the individual will being subsumed into the "universial will" sort of negates the atheist part a bit, not to metion smacking of nazi autocratic leanings. Two -- he was such a dour fucking pessimist, almost to the dourness to the pont of Sartre, yet the man was incredibly rich and never had to work a day in his life. Honestly this holds true for most Philosophers. That's why I think they all should at least be optimistic. Hello? if your gonna to leach off society couldn't you at least not be such a fucking downer?
That's why I enjoy such Philosopher's as Herodotous and other really early Greeks who make ridiculous claims like "The Earth is suspended on the backs of four giant turtles."

Also -- "Helter Skelter" -- Yes, a very cool song indeed. It's really too bad that Paul McCarteny's most balls-out proto-metal song ever was interpreted as a prophecy/suggestion of a future race war that would kill out the majority of the planets population (starting with so that white people could go breed in the mountains of Colorado and emerge generation later all hip and down with they bad aryan selves. I can never fully get over that.
How do you go from "Do you or don't you want me to make you" to "kill Sharon Tate." jeez...
Can y'all tell I'm putting off writing a paper?
I've just listend to most of the first disc of the white album while writing this. I guess thats some small tribute to the man.


Thanks for scrolling to the end of this gibberish, even if you didn't read any thing else. Rock on.

[spectralgrey]

And one more point. Just because someone sings something into a microphone with a bunch of guitars and shit, doesn't mean it's true. Personally, I don't like hearing peoples opinions unless they want to hear mine -- and they probably don't. So I wish these clowns would get off their high horse ... and get ready for Hammertime.

Maybe they do want to hear your opinions. You're right, just because someone sings something into a microphone with a bunch of guitars and shit doesn't mean it's true. However, you don't have to follow the words he or she says. You can hear an untrue statement and appreciate it for its sheer power. A statement can be true or untrue, but that doesn't make it valid or invalid. This is elementary logic. Whether or not you listen to what an artist is saying is simply a matter of open-mindedness. Can you listen and appreciate one's words without compromising your personal values? Of course! It's only a matter of effort.

To label didactic art as childish (actually some of my favorite art is childish as it lacks the pretension of maturity) or as simply non-art is flat out ignorant. A fable can cause transcendence to that "true primal unity." The Zen Koans come immediately to mind, as do the Taoist writings of Chuang Tzu (I read too). The writings have a message, but also shake your consciousness and make you humbly aware of the real wordless order of life. You can bring a listener to the ground with a message or a point. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

ANYWAY...
As this regards to John Lennon...
He was an amazing lyricist who could entertain and enlighten in myriad ways. From the narrative of Norwegian Wood, to the Tibetan acid spoutings of Tomorrow Never Knows, to the abstract childhood nostalgia of Strawberry Fields Forever to the straight up rock of I Want You (She's So Heavy), a song of few words but great feeling, and finally the message of Imagine, which simultaneously makes one aware of the negative facets to the world while inspiring hope. I wouldn't rank Lennon's lyrics as art based on whether they're narrative or political commentary or primal screams. It's the words he used and the way he put them together, whether I can relate or agree to his feelings or messages or not, that make him a great artist and one of the greatest rock poets.

[spectralgrey]

Take a look at any of his books of pure words, unaccompanied by music. I dare you to not be entertained on some level.

[Stephen]

Oh suck it up shithead, this has nothing to do with PC fuckin' anything. I'll take her Plastic Ono Band over most of the shitty Beatles' "novelty songs about hippy-dippy bullshit nothing" catalog any-fuckin'-day.
Tone deaf? Who fucking gives a shit? When was that even an issue?

For those of us who actually like singing that doesn't suck, constantly.
Pax, Steve
PS: That shithead comment: Ad hominims are the last resort a weak and pathetic arguement

[creature.of.habit]

We live in a country where John Lennon
takes six bullets in the chest. Yoko Ono is
standing right next to him. Not one F**king bullet.
Explain that to me! Explain that to me!

hi...just wanna make a point here...denis leary DID NOT wrote this..EVER...Bill Hicks did, Denis was famous for stealing his work....this is a well documented episode...sorry, couldnt let this pass, Hicks is my personal hero.

[chris harris]

I personally think these times are pretty fucking good myself.

Hammertime hasn't read a book in three years.

psssst... read a newspaper.